Reactivation questions

[huggytree]

Would a reactivated guns form 4 say the original maker or the reactivation smiths name?

Would it be a c&r still ? If not who would know ?

Does it need to have the reactivating smiths name on the receiver ? Hidden ok?

 

Ive got a 38/44 that I know was a dewat. I cannot find any smiths mark on it but it could be under the stock I guess. My form 4 says beretta. Ive got a foia on it so I know its exact history.

[bug]

My understanding is, 4 should indicate the reac smith not the original. It will NOT retain C&R status. It should be marked per reg by the reac smith. I also understand that this didn't always happen and may have been poorly monitored in the past.

[jim c 351]

I have 2 rewats and both state original maker on form 4.

Jim C

[StrangeRanger]

My re-watted M1 has no markings from the 'smith and the Form 4 lists "Thompson" as the manufacturer

[pstidan]

I reactivated my '42 RIA 1917A1 in 2010. It is still C&R and Rock Island Arsenal remains the manufacturer. My entire saga from acquisition through reactivation was documented as it occurred over on 1919A4 dot com.

 

 

[av8tr]

I think there is a difference between a reactivation of a DEWAT and the remanufacture of something cut. Bob (Black River) has spoken to this before and is the man best suited to answer, in my opinion. That said, I believe a reactivated DEWAT remains C&R while a remanufactured weapon does not. Remanufactured weapons are certainly marked by the Remanufacturer. I can't remember if Reactivations are required to be marked, but I think so. Just because something is required, doesn't mean it got done. Hopefully, Bob will chime in.

[sherman3]

Registered Dewat reactivated still C&R Remanufactured not C&R

 

My mistake. I should have said Manufactured not remanufactured.

Edited July 30, 2020 by sherman3

[Sandman1957]

The reactivation of a registered Deactivated War Trophy is not manufacturing. This is why it retains its C&R status. No additional markings are legally required.

[johnsonlmg41]

Would a reactivated guns form 4 say the original maker or the reactivation smiths name?

Would it be a c&r still ? If not who would know ?

Does it need to have the reactivating smiths name on the receiver ? Hidden ok?

 

Ive got a 38/44 that I know was a dewat. I cannot find any smiths mark on it but it could be under the stock I guess. My form 4 says beretta. Ive got a foia on it so I know its exact history.

 

If a gunsmith (02/07) did it 98% or better that it is marked.....somewhere. Location depends a lot on the time when it was done. The earlier, the more obscure, more recently they have to be obvious

It will always be C+R because that is dependent on the date of original registration... and that never changes.

 

If it was done by an individual it may or may not be marked. Often the requirement was sort of bypassed depending on how it may have been transferred. I've done this many times and done many reactivations multiple ways.

 

There is no such thing as "remanufacturing". Some guns that were registered after the cutoff, but were in country are considered new guns made when they were registered, even though they were made from parts of existing guns, technically they are "new" since they did not actually exist in whole form. Reactivations are guns that are/were always complete, only non- functional. Even the "new" made guns are becoming C+R eligible based on their age so the lines are already beginning to blur. In the future one will have to be careful since one C+R that had a plugged barrel may be on equal footing with one that was cut into 3 pieces and slapped back together.

 

Not really sure why anyone would be interested in who did a reactivation, and that will most certainly be redacted on the form one, two, four, or five? If it's not on the gun it's not likely to be found. Any markings on the gun detract from the value IMO, especially visible ones.

[huggytree]

I may have to take my stock off the 38/44 this weekend to see if its there. The replacement barrel has marks on it from the replacement (the bad but not perfect either) I suspect its not a smith reactivation. Mine was 68 registered but reactivated not long ago Edited July 30, 2020 by huggytree

[Black River Militaria CII]

The reactivation of a registered Deactivated War Trophy is not manufacturing. This is why it retains its C&R status. No additional markings are legally required.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. ATF defines the act of "reactivation" as a form or "manufacturing" which is the reason that the marking of the receiver is required by the person doing the reactivation. Both individuals and FFL/SOTs completing a reactivation are required to mark the receiver with their name and address.

It retains is C+R status because is was registered prior to the changes in the GCA'68.

i made an effort to eliminate this marking requirement manmy yeqrs ago and the ATf lawyers insisted that ti was a necessary and legal requirement.

Many reactivations are not marked for various reasons.

The mfg/import info does not change for a registered DEWAT that has been reactivated.

The proper paper trail for reactivation is F5 to FFL07/SOTII, reactivation and marking, F2 indicating "reactivation" to ATF and return by taxed F4 to registrant. An individual should receive a registered DEWAT on an F5, submit F1 for reactivation, and when he has his approved F1 he can reactivate the MG and mark it. His F1 is his registration paperwork.

Many DEWATs have changed registrants by F4 over the years before they were reactivated. Once on the F4s most never were reverted to F5s prior to reactivation.

An FOIA will reveal the history of the forms used for transfers and one can find out if one's allegedly reactivated MG was properly reactivated or not with this info. ATF doesn't seem to care at all about any of this. FWIW

[bug]

Bob,

 

I was wrong on the C&R status, my bad. One final question. In the proper paper trail you listed above, who would be the manufacturer listed on the new F4 or F1? Thanks.

 

Bob D

[Sandman1957]

By chance is there a difference in what is Law, and what is policy. Policy changes frequently. Here's my favorite example with General (4 star) Retired Robert H. Barrow's testimony to Congress of Women assigment to the Infantry. At the time it was NOT done, and most if not all of the things he relates have come to pass and more.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=general+barrow+sasc+testimony&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS871US871&oq=genernal+barrow&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j46j0l5.6057j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Black River Militaria CII]

Bob,

 

I was wrong on the C&R status, my bad. One final question. In the proper paper trail you listed above, who would be the manufacturer listed on the new F4 or F1? Thanks.

 

Bob D

The new form 1 and 4, after reactivation, list the same manufacturer as listed on the ORIGINAL registration of the MG which should be the same ID on the registration of the registered DEWAT. The ID of the manufacturer of an MG registered prior to the end of the '68 Amnesty never changes except for provable corrections if ATF is petitioned to make the change.

[bbrown]

For example, the Form 4 for my re-watted 1914 Lewis gun (one of the Irish ones) has "LEWIS MACHINE GUN / ENGLAND" in the "maker" box, but the underside of the receiver body itself contains the marking "U.S. ARMAMENT CORP / EPHRATA PA", presumably the folks who did the re-wat.

Edited July 30, 2020 by bbrown

[huggytree]

Took the stock off my 38/44. No markings/engravings hidden under it

 

Why does the foia block out who sent the reactivation form in? Id be curious to know who did it. I get hiding individuals who owned my gun but not who reactivated it

Edited July 31, 2020 by huggytree

[fifthmdec]

We used FOIA paperwork to prove that our Ingram M6 submachinegun was indeed a C&R. The NFRTR had the original manufacture in the early 1950’s as a Form 2. It was transferring out to a C&R transferee. We received a notification that their records do not show it as a C&R. Therefore, they gave us an allotted time frame to provide the necessary information to validate our claim.

 

We were successful and the Ingram transferred out to the transferee as a C&R. The FOIA requests are handled by the disclosure department of the ATF. Even though we received RIP paperwork, there was enough information contained in that it was obvious that the Form 2 was submitted by the Ingram’manufacturer in CA and was approved in 1952. The first transfer out went to a LE Agency on a Form 5.

 

A FOIA on your MGs are worth it. Sometimes, what was suppose to be redacted is not.

[Robert Henley]

 

The reactivation of a registered Deactivated War Trophy is not manufacturing. This is why it retains its C&R status. No additional markings are legally required.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. ATF defines the act of "reactivation" as a form or "manufacturing" which is the reason that the marking of the receiver is required by the person doing the reactivation. Both individuals and FFL/SOTs completing a reactivation are required to mark the receiver with their name and address.

It retains is C+R status because is was registered prior to the changes in the GCA'68.

i made an effort to eliminate this marking requirement manmy yeqrs ago and the ATf lawyers insisted that ti was a necessary and legal requirement.

Many reactivations are not marked for various reasons.

The mfg/import info does not change for a registered DEWAT that has been reactivated.

The proper paper trail for reactivation is F5 to FFL07/SOTII, reactivation and marking, F2 indicating "reactivation" to ATF and return by taxed F4 to registrant. An individual should receive a registered DEWAT on an F5, submit F1 for reactivation, and when he has his approved F1 he can reactivate the MG and mark it. His F1 is his registration paperwork.

Many DEWATs have changed registrants by F4 over the years before they were reactivated. Once on the F4s most never were reverted to F5s prior to reactivation.

An FOIA will reveal the history of the forms used for transfers and one can find out if one's allegedly reactivated MG was properly reactivated or not with this info. ATF doesn't seem to care at all about any of this. FWIW

 

I did a FOIA request on a STEN, and I've got the reactivation and later forms but there's what looks like an earlier form page (attached) that appears to be missing the first page?? Can you tell from the attached and the reference to Box Number Fifteen what form this would be? (I covered up the last part of the SN.) It looks like there were a number of STENs listed on this form, although you can't tell from all the redaction. I'm trying to trace it back to the original registration. It's a C&R gun.

 

Thanks,

 

Robert

ATF Form 09012020.pdf

[kp31]

It would be safe to say that several very experienced individuals in the MG community that I've spoken with including a lawyer I know specializing in NFA law who disagrees with Bob on his assessment of marking requirments for an individual and also that the ATF considers it "manufacturing" of an MG for an individual reactivation. I am aware and have stated Bob's point to them and I am only stating facts that others have another opinion on which I'm not qualified to considered and expert. I certainly respect his opinion and many many years of work in the area.

[Frank Iannamico]

Would a reactivated guns form 4 say the original maker or the reactivation smiths name?

Would it be a c&r still ? If not who would know ?

Does it need to have the reactivating smiths name on the receiver ? Hidden ok?

 

Ive got a 38/44 that I know was a dewat. I cannot find any smiths mark on it but it could be under the stock I guess. My form 4 says beretta. Ive got a foia on it so I know its exact history.

The ATF is going to look up the original form that the gun was registered on.